bucfanclw wrote:To what end? She acted within protocol to unmask the names. It's only a "story" because some of the info made it to the press but there's zero evidence to suggest she's responsible for that. What you consider to be "the real story" is just another distraction cooked up by a far right wing blogger. This time it was Daily Caller.

Bloomberg is far right wing? Eli Lake is credited w/ breaking the story. Not that it matters.

Eli Lake can't break the story a full day after Cernovich. Hell, even DTJr gave Cernovich Credit. You know Cernovich... the Pizzagate guy... yeah he's pretty legit.

DreadNaught wrote:Bloomberg is far right wing? Eli Lake is credited w/ breaking the story. Not that it matters.

Eli Lake can't break the story a full day after Cernovich. Hell, even DTJr gave Cernovich Credit. You know Cernovich... the Pizzagate guy... yeah he's pretty legit.

I know of Cernovich. He's a bit too Alex Jonesish imho to ever be used as a source for anything credible. My point was Bloomberg reported the story over the weekend citing there own sources (not Cernovich). Anyways, the semantics of who reported it first doesn't really matter.

Unmasking US citizens is should only be done for matters pertaining to National Security according to the IC. So if the Trump transition team met that standard over the period of time in question than Rice needs to provide that justification. It doesn't even have to be public. But she needs to testify under oath why she made repeated requests to unmask Trump officials over the period of time in question and who she shared that information with. We know a felony was committed as a result of the unmasking of Flynn, that is an un-disputable fact.

This isn't a witch hunt against the Obama administration, we know Rice made requests to unmask Trump officials, we know a felony leak was committed as result. I'm simply asking for additional questions to be asked of the person that has intimate knowledge of the situation and provided inconsistent responses on TV regarding the issues within the past 2 weeks.

I realize that we're already spending dozens of millions of tax payer dollars for Trump to take trips to his own resorts...roughly 1/3 of his time as president thus far, but I'm wondering if anyone knows how much Trump is actually profiting off of this? How much of this tax payer money goes directly to Trump's profits?

It was cute how he donated that pay check to the Parks Service (and he and his gullible supporters boasted about it)...after he slashed their budget and is making it legal to drill/mine for fossil fuels on National Park land....but how much more is he actually profiting off of us tax payers?

deltbucs wrote:I realize that we're already spending dozens of millions of tax payer dollars for Trump to take trips to his own resorts...roughly 1/3 of his time as president thus far, but I'm wondering if anyone knows how much Trump is actually profiting off of this? How much of this tax payer money goes directly to Trump's profits?

It was cute how he donated that pay check to the Parks Service (and he and his gullible supporters boasted about it)...after he slashed their budget and is making it legal to drill/mine for fossil fuels on National Park land....but how much more is he actually profiting off of us tax payers?

Well, he made money last week because he owns part of a company (Raytheon) that manufactures tomahawk missiles. Stock prices went up because he chose the wrong ordinance for the mission at hand, but the press couldn't stop saying "Tomahawk! Tomahawk! Tomahawk!"

deltbucs wrote:I realize that we're already spending dozens of millions of tax payer dollars for Trump to take trips to his own resorts...roughly 1/3 of his time as president thus far, but I'm wondering if anyone knows how much Trump is actually profiting off of this? How much of this tax payer money goes directly to Trump's profits?

It was cute how he donated that pay check to the Parks Service (and he and his gullible supporters boasted about it)...after he slashed their budget and is making it legal to drill/mine for fossil fuels on National Park land....but how much more is he actually profiting off of us tax payers?

Well, he made money last week because he owns part of a company (Raytheon) that manufactures tomahawk missiles. Stock prices went up because he chose the wrong ordinance for the mission at hand, but the press couldn't stop saying "Tomahawk! Tomahawk! Tomahawk!"

lol

That was a ridiculous article.

Most agree the attack was stupid and pointless, but there's no reason to introduce fallacious information into the discussion.

deltbucs wrote:I realize that we're already spending dozens of millions of tax payer dollars for Trump to take trips to his own resorts...roughly 1/3 of his time as president thus far, but I'm wondering if anyone knows how much Trump is actually profiting off of this? How much of this tax payer money goes directly to Trump's profits?

It was cute how he donated that pay check to the Parks Service (and he and his gullible supporters boasted about it)...after he slashed their budget and is making it legal to drill/mine for fossil fuels on National Park land....but how much more is he actually profiting off of us tax payers?

Well, he made money last week because he owns part of a company (Raytheon) that manufactures tomahawk missiles. Stock prices went up because he chose the wrong ordinance for the mission at hand, but the press couldn't stop saying "Tomahawk! Tomahawk! Tomahawk!"

Kind of like he owns stock in Energy Transfer Partners. The company that's overseeing the DAPL.

deltbucs wrote:I realize that we're already spending dozens of millions of tax payer dollars for Trump to take trips to his own resorts...roughly 1/3 of his time as president thus far, but I'm wondering if anyone knows how much Trump is actually profiting off of this? How much of this tax payer money goes directly to Trump's profits?

It was cute how he donated that pay check to the Parks Service (and he and his gullible supporters boasted about it)...after he slashed their budget and is making it legal to drill/mine for fossil fuels on National Park land....but how much more is he actually profiting off of us tax payers?

Well, he made money last week because he owns part of a company (Raytheon) that manufactures tomahawk missiles. Stock prices went up because he chose the wrong ordinance for the mission at hand, but the press couldn't stop saying "Tomahawk! Tomahawk! Tomahawk!"

Corsair wrote:Well, he made money last week because he owns part of a company (Raytheon) that manufactures tomahawk missiles. Stock prices went up because he chose the wrong ordinance for the mission at hand, but the press couldn't stop saying "Tomahawk! Tomahawk! Tomahawk!"

Trump selected the ordinance?

Yeah. And he was on the ships pushing the buttons too, don't you know.

Yeah. And he was on the ships pushing the buttons too, don't you know.

I think many non-military personnel believe the President has that sort of control on military operations. I saw a lot of people talking about how Trump planned the raid poorly that killed the soldier earlier this year. Some did the same with Obama. They think the President is answering 9 lines, while flying drones around shooting children. We really know the Pres only does that stuff during undercover boss.

The president dropped nearly 60,000lbs of ordnance on that airfield so the reports that it did diddly squat to that airfield are bullshit.

The fact that aircraft were still able to utilize the runway seems pretty odd to me aside from the possibility that they targeted aircraft shelters and buildings rather than the runway where drop ordnance would be more effective at shutting down the runway for more than a day or two.

We tore that place up. The only remaining question is what good did it do?

Mountaineer Buc wrote:A tomahawk missile is 20 feet long with a 1,000lb warhead.

The president dropped nearly 60,000lbs of ordnance on that airfield so the reports that it did diddly squat to that airfield are bullshit.

The fact that aircraft were still able to utilize the runway seems pretty odd to me aside from the possibility that they targeted aircraft shelters and buildings rather than the runway where drop ordnance would be more effective at shutting down the runway for more than a day or two.

We tore that place up. The only remaining question is what good did it do?

There was an ex General on one of the news talk shows the day of or day after the missile attack and he said the Tomahawk's are not designed to function as an airfield ripper upper and that was unlikely the goal. Mentioned that there would be alternative missiles to use to destroy an airfield....missiles designed more to burrow and explode after under ground a bit. So the airfield not being ripped up would not be unusual. He also said that attempting to rip up an airfield can be frustrating because of the ease of putting it back together for most militaries. He said there were likely specific targets such as aircraft that were hit.

Mountaineer Buc wrote:A tomahawk missile is 20 feet long with a 1,000lb warhead.

The president dropped nearly 60,000lbs of ordnance on that airfield so the reports that it did diddly squat to that airfield are bullshit.

The fact that aircraft were still able to utilize the runway seems pretty odd to me aside from the possibility that they targeted aircraft shelters and buildings rather than the runway where drop ordnance would be more effective at shutting down the runway for more than a day or two.

We tore that place up. The only remaining question is what good did it do?

Corsair wrote:I've also yet to read a report that we destroyed or compromised the chemical weapons that were being deployed out of this airbase.

It seems pretty obvious what we did. We made a lot of money for Trump and some other rich motherfuckers.

Buc2 wrote:Yeah. And he was on the ships pushing the buttons too, don't you know.

I think many non-military personnel believe the President has that sort of control on military operations. I saw a lot of people talking about how Trump planned the raid poorly that killed the soldier earlier this year. Some did the same with Obama. They think the President is answering 9 lines, while flying drones around shooting children. We really know the Pres only does that stuff during undercover boss.

The fact that he doesn't even know which country the missiles were pointed at kind of confirms your point.

Mary Buffett, ContributorAuthor, Speaker, EntrepreneurThe Inevitable Resignation Of Donald J. TrumpIn the end, it was the gravity of events that doomed the Trump administration.

This administration cannot last; the only issue that remains is the date and time of its departure. At some point, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan will make the long and painful trip to the Oval Office ― like others did in August 1974 ― to confront President Trump that he has no political future and the only option is a swift resignation.

Perhaps when that day will come before the 2018 midterms; perhaps it will emerge long after Republicans majorities are in ashes. But come it will. After McConnell and Ryan depart a rancorous Oval Office meeting, there was the long night of angry tweets. Once reality sets in, he and his family will take the somber long walk to Marine One for his final flight to Mar-A-Lago. With that, the grand political experiment of “Amateur Night in The White House” closed for its final performance and the short, sad, and divisive of era of Donald Trump will come to an end.

Political commentators will lament that the Trump Era ended in a way it began—as an erratic and chaotic adventure that exhausted a nation after a very short period. Scholars noted that it was a presidency that veered out of control, right at the outset, from the dystopian inaugural address to the inflated tallies of the audience that watched it. Obnoxious tweets bubbled up at hours when most reasonable people were fast asleep. Wild accusations emerged suggesting that President Obama had wiretapped Trump at his New York home. Instead of walking these inflammatory statements back, Trump would double or triple down, suggesting that other intelligence services of other nations worked surreptitiously to spy on him.

Politically, Trump’s administration became a gaping wound that simply would not heal.In the end, it was the gravity of events that doomed the Trump administration. As Trump’s numbers fell faster than any sitting president in U.S. history and as the polls for the 2018 midterms looked more and more like headlights from an oncoming freight train, Republican leaders hoped that a presidential replacement could cauterize the damage and help them retain at least one of the two houses of Congress.

The nation turned on Trump as he broke promises faster than he made them during the campaign. The Credibility Gap, a phrase not used since the days of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, quickly became a gaping chasm. The ACHA, the Republican counterproposal to Obamacare lay in ruins, after members of the Republican Freedom Caucus refused to support various part of the bill. White working class voters, who served as Trump’s bedrock of support, were in open revolt. Many competitive Congressional districts, now held by Republicans, felt the heat over the summer during rancorous town meetings, went ballistic after the Trump budget wanted to cancel funding for organizations like “Meals on Wheels.”

Politically, Trump’s administration became a gaping wound that simply would not heal. Part of being President means serving as a beacon of hope to the rest of the world; it means leading by example and not getting into endless feuds and squabbles with political regional, and international allies. In time, the evidence would overwhelm; some would talk while others would sing.

For Trump, he could only stay on script for a short period before stumbling back into his conspiratorial persona. It seemed that Trump had reversed the major lines of President Kennedy’s Inaugural speech to now reflect that he would “fight any friend and defend any foe” or “ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you.”

As historians contemplate the rogue nature of the Trump White House which began with an inauguration speech that rivaled the one Uncle Scar delivered in “The Lion King” when he paired up with the hyenas, there will still be more questions than answers. Somewhere, the progeny of Millard Fillmore and Warren G. Harding will breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that their presidential ancestors are no longer the doormat of political incompetence.

However, as we pivot back to the present-day and worry about a Presidential chief executive who will stoop to any level to debase the American brand, when will Republicans step up to place country over party? How would they feel about having Donald Trump roaming around the Situation Room should another Cuban Missile Crisis emerge?

In the end, the evidence of political malfeasance was piled too high and the only recourse that lay ahead was immediate resignation. While this is political prognostication our part, at some point, we all must put country ahead of partisanship and all agree that our constitution means something beyond parchment. With the daily waterfall of chaos cascading upon our national populace, Donald Trump needs to consider his own exit strategy.

Mary Buffett, ContributorAuthor, Speaker, EntrepreneurThe Inevitable Resignation Of Donald J. TrumpIn the end, it was the gravity of events that doomed the Trump administration.

This administration cannot last; the only issue that remains is the date and time of its departure. At some point, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan will make the long and painful trip to the Oval Office ― like others did in August 1974 ― to confront President Trump that he has no political future and the only option is a swift resignation.

Perhaps when that day will come before the 2018 midterms; perhaps it will emerge long after Republicans majorities are in ashes. But come it will. After McConnell and Ryan depart a rancorous Oval Office meeting, there was the long night of angry tweets. Once reality sets in, he and his family will take the somber long walk to Marine One for his final flight to Mar-A-Lago. With that, the grand political experiment of “Amateur Night in The White House” closed for its final performance and the short, sad, and divisive of era of Donald Trump will come to an end.

Political commentators will lament that the Trump Era ended in a way it began—as an erratic and chaotic adventure that exhausted a nation after a very short period. Scholars noted that it was a presidency that veered out of control, right at the outset, from the dystopian inaugural address to the inflated tallies of the audience that watched it. Obnoxious tweets bubbled up at hours when most reasonable people were fast asleep. Wild accusations emerged suggesting that President Obama had wiretapped Trump at his New York home. Instead of walking these inflammatory statements back, Trump would double or triple down, suggesting that other intelligence services of other nations worked surreptitiously to spy on him.

Politically, Trump’s administration became a gaping wound that simply would not heal.In the end, it was the gravity of events that doomed the Trump administration. As Trump’s numbers fell faster than any sitting president in U.S. history and as the polls for the 2018 midterms looked more and more like headlights from an oncoming freight train, Republican leaders hoped that a presidential replacement could cauterize the damage and help them retain at least one of the two houses of Congress.

The nation turned on Trump as he broke promises faster than he made them during the campaign. The Credibility Gap, a phrase not used since the days of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, quickly became a gaping chasm. The ACHA, the Republican counterproposal to Obamacare lay in ruins, after members of the Republican Freedom Caucus refused to support various part of the bill. White working class voters, who served as Trump’s bedrock of support, were in open revolt. Many competitive Congressional districts, now held by Republicans, felt the heat over the summer during rancorous town meetings, went ballistic after the Trump budget wanted to cancel funding for organizations like “Meals on Wheels.”

Politically, Trump’s administration became a gaping wound that simply would not heal. Part of being President means serving as a beacon of hope to the rest of the world; it means leading by example and not getting into endless feuds and squabbles with political regional, and international allies. In time, the evidence would overwhelm; some would talk while others would sing.

For Trump, he could only stay on script for a short period before stumbling back into his conspiratorial persona. It seemed that Trump had reversed the major lines of President Kennedy’s Inaugural speech to now reflect that he would “fight any friend and defend any foe” or “ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you.”

As historians contemplate the rogue nature of the Trump White House which began with an inauguration speech that rivaled the one Uncle Scar delivered in “The Lion King” when he paired up with the hyenas, there will still be more questions than answers. Somewhere, the progeny of Millard Fillmore and Warren G. Harding will breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that their presidential ancestors are no longer the doormat of political incompetence.

However, as we pivot back to the present-day and worry about a Presidential chief executive who will stoop to any level to debase the American brand, when will Republicans step up to place country over party? How would they feel about having Donald Trump roaming around the Situation Room should another Cuban Missile Crisis emerge?

In the end, the evidence of political malfeasance was piled too high and the only recourse that lay ahead was immediate resignation. While this is political prognostication our part, at some point, we all must put country ahead of partisanship and all agree that our constitution means something beyond parchment. With the daily waterfall of chaos cascading upon our national populace, Donald Trump needs to consider his own exit strategy.

Keep dreaming, darling. You are only setting yourself up for future disappointment by swallowing what these Laurence O' Donnellites are shilling. You are going to have to live with Trump for at least 4 years, probably 8.

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Considering the fact that the DNC is doing everything it can to protect it's corporate interests rather than represent people I would say that eight years is very much a possibility.

Who the hell are they going to trot out there in 20' Corey Booker?

I think both Booker and Warren will run. I also think Adam Schiff is extremely ambitious and will make a run. But babe will survive. I didn't care for having Obama on the television for 8 years but I know lots of my fellow citizens absolutely loved having him as President.

I think this process of having a different party control the WH every 8 years or so, as is usually the case, has been beneficial to this nation.

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Considering the fact that the DNC is doing everything it can to protect it's corporate interests rather than represent people I would say that eight years is very much a possibility.

Who the hell are they going to trot out there in 20' Corey Booker?

I think both Booker and Warren will run. I also think Adam Schiff is extremely ambitious and will make a run. But babe will survive. I didn't care for having Obama on the television for 8 years but I know lots of my fellow citizens absolutely loved having him as President.

I think this process of having a different party control the WH every 8 years or so, as is usually the case, has been beneficial to this nation.

Legislative bodies are far more important, but we tend to hope that "our guy" will somehow circumvent everything and abide by our will.

He just doesn't get it, does he? Turkey is currently embroiled in a contested vote that international watchdogs have warned shows evidence of impropriety, and the end result is going to be detrimental to their democracy while allowing Erdoğan to remain in power until 2029 and removing the office of PM.

Should we expect that Donnie is taking notes?

Steve Bannon interview:

Last edited by Corsair on Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DreadNaught wrote:I know of Cernovich. He's a bit too Alex Jonesish imho to ever be used as a source for anything credible. My point was Bloomberg reported the story over the weekend citing there own sources (not Cernovich). Anyways, the semantics of who reported it first doesn't really matter.

Unmasking US citizens is should only be done for matters pertaining to National Security according to the IC. So if the Trump transition team met that standard over the period of time in question than Rice needs to provide that justification. It doesn't even have to be public. But she needs to testify under oath why she made repeated requests to unmask Trump officials over the period of time in question and who she shared that information with. We know a felony was committed as a result of the unmasking of Flynn, that is an un-disputable fact.

This isn't a witch hunt against the Obama administration, we know Rice made requests to unmask Trump officials, we know a felony leak was committed as result. I'm simply asking for additional questions to be asked of the person that has intimate knowledge of the situation and provided inconsistent responses on TV regarding the issues within the past 2 weeks.

A review of the surveillance material flagged by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes shows no inappropriate action by Susan Rice or any other Obama administration official, Republican and Democratic Congressional aides who have been briefed on the matter told NBC News.

President Donald Trump told the New York Times he believed former National Security Adviser Rice broke the law by asking for the identities of Trump aides who were mentioned in transcripts of U.S. surveillance of foreign targets. Normally, the identities of Americans are blacked out in transcripts circulated by the National Security Agency, but they may be "unmasked," if their identities are relevant to understanding the intelligence.

Rice did not dispute that she requested the identities of certain Americans in the waning days of the Obama administration, but she denied any wrongdoing in an interview with NBC News' Andrea Mitchell. Her denial came after Nunes said he believed the names of Trump aides had been inappropriately unmasked and circulated.

Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees from both parties have traveled to NSA headquarters to review the relevant intelligence reports.

"I saw no evidence of any wrongdoing," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents, who would not agree to be identified further. "It was all completely normal."

His assessment was shared by a senior Republican aide who had been briefed on the matter but declined to speak on the record.

The finding by lawmakers of both parties was first reported by CNN.

Nunes has recused himself from his committee's investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election while the Office of Congressional Ethics investigates complaints that he disclosed classified information when he brought the unmasking concern to light.

When the New York Times asked Trump on April 5 if Rice broke the law, Trump said, "Do I think? Yes, I think."

"I think it's going to be the biggest story," Trump added. "It's such an important story for our country and the world."

Sebastian Gorka, a Trump national security adviser, was asked by Sean Hannity on Fox News how the unmasking issue compared to Watergate.

"Losing 14 minutes of audiotape in comparison to this is a little spat in the sandbox in the kindergarten," Gorka replied.

But current and former U.S. intelligence officials have said that any unmasking request by Rice would have been made to the NSA director or the FBI director, who would have the final say. Both men are still in their jobs under President Trump.

Current and former officials say it is routine, and not inappropriate, for the national security adviser to request the identities of Americans mentioned in intelligence reports.

"Let's say there was a conversation between two foreigners about a conversation they were having with an American, who was proposing to sell to them high-tech bomb making equipment," Rice said April 4 on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports. "Now, if that came to me as National Security Advisor, it would matter enormously. Is this some kook sitting in his living room communicating via the internet, offering to sell something he doesn't have? Or is it a serious person or company or entity with the ability to provide that technology perhaps to an adversary? That would be an example of a case where knowing who the U.S. person was, was necessary to assess the information."